RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00608
            INDEX CODE:  126

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 he received on 12 May 97 be removed  from  his  records
and his former grade of staff sergeant be restored.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He committed the misconduct reflected in the Article 15 action but his
actions  were  dealt  with  undue  severity   because   of   publicity
surrounding the ??? court-martial.   His  offenses  did  not  threaten
national security or undermine his loyalty to the Air  Force  mission.
He is having trouble getting promoted and could be denied reenlistment
at the 18 ½ year point.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
21 May 81.  He is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of senior airman, effective, and with a date of  rank  (DOR)  of
12 May 97.

Applicant’s  Airman  Performance  Report  (APR)/Enlisted   Performance
Report (EPR) profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             20 May 82                     8
             28 Feb 83                     6 (Referral Report)
             29 Feb 84                     9
             28 Feb 85                     9
             25 Aug 85                     9
             25 Aug 86                     9
             25 Aug 87                     9
             30 Jun 88                     9
             28 Oct 88                     9
             28 Oct 89                     9
              1 Aug 90                     4 (New rating system)
             15 Jul 91                     5
             15 Jul 92                     5
             18 Apr 93                     5
             26 Sep 93                     5
             29 Dec 94                     5
             17 Sep 95                     5
             17 Sep 96                     4
             24 Mar 97                     2 (Referral Report)
              2 Sep 97                     4 (Referral Report)
              2 Sep 98                     5
              2 Sep 99                     5

On 12 May 97, applicant was notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for disobeying a lawful command
to have no contact with the wife of another airman and for adultery.

On 12 May 97, after consulting  with  counsel,  applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
submitted a written presentation.

On 12 May 97, he was found guilty by his  commander  who  imposed  the
following punishment:  Reduction from the grade of staff  sergeant  to
the grade of senior  airman,  with  a  new  DOR  of  12 May  97;  and,
forfeiture of $600 pay a month for two  months,  which  was  suspended
until 11 Nov 97, after which time it would be remitted without further
action, unless sooner vacated.

Applicant did not appeal the punishment.  The Article 15 was filed  in
his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this
application and indicated that at the time the Article 15  action  was
taken, the applicant did not appeal the punishment nor did he  contest
the referral EPR.  Taking the facts as described by the applicant,  it
appears that he was repeatedly counseled to  avoid  contact  with  the
wife of a fellow airman.  His failure to do so was  initially  handled
through lesser administrative  actions  (a  letter  of  reprimand  and
letter of counseling).  Not only  did  these  actions  not  deter  the
applicant, however, he further developed the  relationship  by  having
sexual  relations  with  the  airman’s  wife.   When  confronted,   he
threatened his chain of command with negative public exposure.   Thus,
it seems clear that the applicant’s commander’s determined  that  more
serious rehabilitative measures were needed.  It is  also  clear  that
the commander’s punishment was well within her  authority  to  impose.
In short, it appears that the Article 15  action,  and  its  attendant
punishment,  accomplished  the  commander’s  goal  by  refocusing  the
applicant’s attention on his responsibility to  comply  with  military
standards.

The applicant compares his situation  to  the  court-martial  of  ???,
implying that the publicity surrounding her case somehow worsened  his
punishment.  JAJM’s initial response is that every  disciplinary  case
is different and the differences between these  two  situations  would
certainly outweigh  any  similarities.   If  a  comparison  was  made,
however, one would have to note that ???,  an  officer,  faced  court-
martial charges for her misconduct.   A  court-martial  proceeding  is
obviously more serious than nonjudicial punishment.   She  also  faced
charges in  addition  to  adultery  and  disobeying  a  lawful  order.
Finally, ???‘s  military  career  was  eventually  cut  short  by  her
misconduct.  In contrast, the applicant remains on  active  duty.   In
other words, if the applicant’s reference to the ??? case is meant  to
demonstrate that she received more favorable treatment, the analogy is
misplaced.

Finally, if the applicant remains a senior airman, he may or  may  not
be allowed to reenlist when his current enlistment expires.  If he has
18 years of service at the time, however, he will have options in  the
event his reenlistment is denied.  For  example,  under  AFI  36-2606,
Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph  1.13,  he  may
appeal any denial of reenlistment to the Secretary of the  Air  Force.
Or, under the same instruction, he  may  be  denied  reenlistment  but
permitted to extend his current enlistment until he  reaches  the  20-
year point.  A denial of an enlistment extension may also be  appealed
to the Secretary.  Thus, there  are  many  variables  apart  from  the
applicant’s  nonjudicial  punishment  that  will   determine   if   he
ultimately qualifies for retirement benefits.  If  the  applicant  has
any further questions about this aspect of his  situation,  he  should
consult his military personnel  flight  (MPF)  for  further  guidance.
JAJM recommends denial of the requested relief.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that should  the  Board  set  the  reduction
aside as requested by the applicant, his effective  date  and  DOR  to
staff sergeant was 1 Mar 89.  If the Board removes the Article  15  in
its entirety or that portion  of  the  punishment  which  demoted  the
applicant to senior airman,  he  would  be  entitled  to  supplemental
consideration to technical sergeant  beginning  with  the  98E6  cycle
provided he is otherwise qualified and recommended by  his  commander.
Promotions for the 98E6 cycle are effective Aug 98 - Jul 99.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a three-page
response (see Exhibit F).

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.
2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  that  he  should  be  given  the  requested  relief.    His
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.   We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 21 January 2000,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 13 Apr 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Apr 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 May 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 21 May 99.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair